User talk:Cbl62

Archives

1. Old
2. 2011
3. 2012
4. 2013
5. 2014
6. 2015
7. 2016
8. 2017
9. 2018
10. 2019
11. 2020
12. 2021
13. 2022
14. 2023
15. 2024

On 3 January 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pete Vann, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Pete Vann recovered from spinal meningitis to set an NCAA single-season passing record? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pete Vann. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Pete Vann), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Z1720 (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Elwyn Dunstan.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On 3 January 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Kurt Burris, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Kurt Burris was the first American football lineman to finish among the top two in Heisman Trophy voting? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kurt Burris. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Kurt Burris), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Z1720 (talk) 12:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On 4 January 2025, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Charlie Maxwell, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of BLKBOK at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cbl62, please note that not only does this nomination have two QPQs due because it was posted during our backlog when the extra QPQ was required, but QPQs are now required to be posted along with the nomination—the week's delay allowed in the past is no longer allowed. The lack was overlooked previously, but now that it's been discovered, you'll need to act quickly. Please post your two QPQs right away; I'd hate to see this nomination closed when it's otherwise in good shape. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Lou Whitaker you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of TonyTheTiger -- TonyTheTiger (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Tony. Sweet Lou deserves a good article, so let me know if there's anything I can improve. Cbl62 (talk) 23:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Lou Whitaker you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Lou Whitaker and Talk:Lou Whitaker/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of TonyTheTiger -- TonyTheTiger (talk) 17:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Should I close this nomination or can you begin revisions this long weekend?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:06, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On 13 January 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article BLKBOK, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that pianist BLKBOK (pronounced "Black Bach") has composed works based on the murder of George Floyd, the Little Rock Nine, and The Negro Motorist Green Book? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/BLKBOK. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, BLKBOK), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming edit-a-thons focused on the Los Angeles Wildfires

In response to the 2025 Los Angeles wildfires, WikiLA has organized three edit-a-thons to create or improve articles about the historically, culturally, and/or architecturally significant structures that were destroyed or damaged during the fires, and the organizations and entities that stepped up to help. Please join us. Sunday, January 26, at the Ebell of Los Angeles in mid-Wilshire from 11:00–4:00. (Details and sign up here.) Sunday, January 26, at the Live Oak Library in Arcadia from 11:00–4:00. (Details and sign up here.) Sunday, February 2, at the Hammer Museum in Westwood from 11:00–4:00. (Details and sign up here.) To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

JSFarman (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of baseball nicknames, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of baseball nicknames (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

List of baseball nicknames

added links pointing to Rusty, Chief, Smoky, Skeeter and Bucko

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cbl62, I am working to add information to the Dan Gilbert article. I see that you're a sports fan and a member of WP:Michigan. As Dan is the owner of the Cleveland Cavaliers and has invested much money in Detroit, I hope you'll have an interest in the edit request I posted on the Talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dan_Gilbert#Additions_to_the_page. Would you consider adding information to the Early life and education and the Philanthropy sections?

Thanks for your help, Annie13478 (talk) 13:31, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Leonard Skinner has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

He's only "famous" for one relatively small thing, it could just be said in the Lynyrd Skynyrd page that the band is named after him, WP:1E

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This is an automated notification. Please refer to the page's history for further information. DatBot (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Lou Whitaker you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Lou Whitaker for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of TonyTheTiger -- TonyTheTiger (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you restore this? It was deleted per BLPPROD but there are some sources on the first page of Google. I'm not sure if it passes GNG or not though (I haven't looked). I am just disputing the BLPPROD. Thanks, ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 16:05, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @WikiOriginal-9:: Did you want this in draft space? Cbl62 (talk) 14:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That will work. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may already be aware of this but Gannon resumed football in 1989. Nice work on the article. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 22:42, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, I knew it was resumed but wasn't sure what year. Would probably be worth a mention. Cbl62 (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cbl, I hope you are well. Am I to understand that any image published in a newspaper between 1930 and 1977 without the symbol "©" or the word "copyright" affixed to it is in the public domain...? JTtheOG (talk) 08:34, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, my understanding that the photo is covered by the newspaper's overall copyright. The issue turns on whether the copyright to the image was renewed. This needs to be checked on a case-by-case basis. Cbl62 (talk) 09:03, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind quickly explaining the process? How would you check for images like File:Boley Dancewicz (1941).jpg or File:St Cloud Times 1942 11 14 Page 9.jpg? Did you have to look through something like this catalog? JTtheOG (talk) 21:32, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My best suggestion is to read through the discussion at User talk:Cbl62/Archive 2024#File:Michael F Seyfrit.jpg. Cbl62 (talk) 01:07, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That was helpful. Since neither the Los Angeles Mirror or The Star-News are listed on the first renewals inventory, does that mean that an old image (1940s/50s) from these periodicals is in the public domain if it appears without a copyright or reprint notice accompanying it either as a caption or in image credits? JTtheOG (talk) 02:30, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since the photo may be a wire photo, it makes sense to also search for the subject of the image (in this case "dancewicz"?) to see if there are any renewals. Cbl62 (talk) 02:41, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For example, this image appears to me like a photo original to the Mirror. I didn't find it in any other accounts of this particular game, including those from the AP, UP, and INS wires, nor in an original LA Times story. Additionally, both the previous and the subsequent pages include images specifically tagged with "AP Wirephoto", further solidifying my suspicions. Would you surmise the same thing? JTtheOG (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you forgot to sign your!vote. LibStar (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

and here too Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohamed Ould Brahim. LibStar (talk) 01:00, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Fixed. Cbl62 (talk) 01:02, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After doing all that work on the Kalamazoo and Albion decades articles, it looks there may be some more early fight names were are missing for the small Michigan colleges:

• Alma; Template:Alma Scots football navbox: current naming scheme is "Maroon and Cream" from 1894 to 1931 and "Scots" thereafter. I've seen some newspapers articles calling Alma the "Presbyterians" in the early 1900s
• Albion; Template:Albion Britons football navbox: current scheme is no fight name before 1900, "Methodists" from 1900 to 1929, and "Britons" thereafter. I think "Methodists" may been used before 1900 a well.
• Adrian; Template:Adrian Bulldogs football navbox: current scheme is "Bulldogs" from inception in 1892. I suspect the "Bulldogs" fight name did not come into use until sometime in the early 1900s.
• Hillsdale; Template:Hillsdale Chargers football navbox: current scheme is "Dales" from inception in 1891 to 1967 and "Chargers" thereafter. I suspect the "Dales" nickname did not come into use until sometime in the 1900s.
• Kalamazoo; Template:Kalamazoo Hornets football navbox: current scheme is no fight name from 1892 to 1922 and "Hornets" thereafter. But I have seen references to "Baptists" in the early 1900s.
• Olivet; Template:Olivet Comets football navbox: current scheme is no fight name from 1890 to 1907, "Crimson" from 1908 to 1931, and "Comets" thereafter. I have also seen references to "Congregationalists".

Something to keep in mind as well flesh this out. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. As the articles are built, and we see the newspaper coverage, we should account for such changes and inconsistenceies. I, too, have noticed fairly common use of denominational names for the early MIAA teams. Cbl62 (talk) 19:23, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 1909: Sources referring to them as Baptists include 9-24-09, 10-31-09 11-07-09, 11-11-09, 11-13-09 11-14-09, 11-16-09
• 1923 and 1924: Navbox says Hornets, but I'm not finding any sources using the term. The newspapers still referred to them as "Baptists". E.g., 10-10-24, 9-12-23
• 1925: Hornets in common usage. E.g., here

Cbl62 (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I searched Newspapers.com from 1900-1924. Sources calling Olivet sports teams the Congregationalists are in the hundreds. Examples: 1904, 1906, 1907, 1913, 1913, 1913, 1915, 1915, 1915, 1915, 1918, 1923, 1924

A quick search appears to also show hundreds referring to them as the Crimson. Cbl62 (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for Alma Presbyterians 1894-1931 results in > 33,000 hits. Examples: 1912, Cbl62 (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Michigan Tech Huskies football, 1960–1969, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 1962 college football season.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, a recent brand-new anon has been on the verge of edit-warring with me and has been since engaged in zero discussion with me when asked and even begun now peskily editing other pages I commonly edit. Should I go through the whole formal process of the Administrators' Noticeboard at this point? Here's the user in question's contributions. Thanks for any help! Wolfdog (talk) 01:18, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Wolfdog: I am traveling to South America tonight and will be out of touch for a couple days. I'd suggest trying another admin or asking for help at the administrator's noticeboard. Cbl62 (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My spring project is further development of multiseason articles on Michigan Division II and III programs that do not IMO warrant stand-alone season articles with the exception of national championship seasons. I welcome help from any interested editors on this effort. So far, I've started the following which would benefit from additional development:

The following are multi-season articles that are on my "to do" list, subject to confirming sufficient level of coverage. If anyone wants to start any of them, I would welcome and appreciate the help.

Cbl62 (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cbl, a few thoughts here:

1. When including rankings in the schedule tables, the "rankyear", "rankdivision", and "poll" fields need to be properly set. Otherwise table the footer will, by default, state that the rankings are from the (FBS) "Coaches Poll".
2. Those decade overview tables after the lead ought to include postseason results and finals rankings, where applicable.
3. The cfb call crises that persists on many national season articles, such as 1957 college football season, could he helped by a priority on creating decades articles over non-independents in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s over more recent decades.

Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 21:56, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the input. Here are my preliminary thoughts:

1. I've generally avoided getting into rankings for Division II/III teams. Rankings can be hard to find, and (unlike FBS) it's unclear which of them are most reputable/reliable.

2. The great majority of teams don't have post-season games at the Division II/III level. As a test case, I've added a column to indicate whether there was a post-season appearance. See Michigan Tech Huskies football, 2010–2019#Decade overview. The details of any post-season performance are already set forth in each season's summary, just below the "Decade overview". Accordingly, adding details of post-season outcomes would IMO unnecessarily clutter the "overview" chart with empty columns or, in rare cases, with information itemized just below the overview chart.

That said, I'm open to color coding to indicate conference / national championship seasons. I may try adding that. Thoughts?

3. I have helped in the past with seasons impacted by the so-called "call crises". However, my focus in the near-term will remain on Michigan GLIAC decade articles moving back in time to the 2000s (and perhaps 2020s). Reasons for my new focus include: (a) using page views as a measure, our readers are far more interested in reading about recent seasons than they are in seasons from 60, 80, or 100 years ago (e.g., articles on perfect season such as 1920 Wooster, 1924 Oberlin, 1936 Middlebury, and 1941 Millikin haven't even generated 100 views); and (b) the occasional change of focus helps maintain my interest in working further on season/decade articles. Cbl62 (talk) 03:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have a full complement of weekly sourced rankings already on Wikipedia for NCAA Division II, e.g. 2010 NCAA Division II football rankings. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This is limited to AFCA. My recollection is that there are multiple rankings at the DII level. Is AFCA considered more authoritative than the others? Cbl62 (talk) 03:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also edited the decade overview table for the Michigan Tech article to more what I had in mind, with specific detail. I agree that the column can be excluded in cases where there team made no postseason appearances during the entire decade. Some programs like Ferris State or Grand Valley State tend me make the playoffs in most years. There are also some bowl games for teams that miss the playoffs. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:35, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A better mock-up would be one of the more frequent playoff participants like Grand Valley or Ferris State. Care to take a crack at how you would propose formatting the decade overview on one of those? And what about color coding for conference/national champions? Cbl62 (talk) 03:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded the Ferris State table. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Grand Valley State Lakers football, 2010–2019, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Caledonia Township, MI.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. It appears Hal Hanson (American football guard) is ambiguous with Hal Hanson, who also played as a guard. Neither appears to be a primary topic, so maybe the dreaded birth year should be the disambiguator (WP:NCGRIDIRON). I'll leave it to your judgement if you care to make the moves and update the links. (As an aside, plain (guard) probably meets WP:CONCISE.[1])—Bagumba (talk) 08:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cbl, nice work expanding the 1905 Hal Hanson article. The other day, I also noticed this issue that Bagumba brings up. I've moved the articles to Hal Hanson (American football, born 1895) and Hal Hanson (American football, born 1905). There is also Harold Hansen (American football) and Hal Hansen! Jweiss11 (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some more cleanup and tweaking to all these articles. They are all now listed at Harold Hanson, a disambiguation page. I think there could be some conflation between Hal Hansen and Harold Hansen (American football). Both are listed as having played at Minnesota in 1916. The Minnesota website lists a "Harold F. Hanson" lettering in 1916; see https://gophersports.com/sports/2020/4/13/football-letterwinners. The 2024 Minnesota media guide lists a "Harold Hansen, B" as a program alumnus that played for the Green Bay Packers in 1923; see page 142 here: https://gophersports.com/documents/2024/7/22/2024_MediaGuide.pdf.Jweiss11 (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jweiss11: User:BeanieFan11 has also been trying to sort the various Hal Hansens. That's what prompted me to expand this one. You guys should put your heads together and see if you can figure out just how many Hal Hansen/Hansons there were playing high-level football in the Upper Midwest of the early 20th century. Cbl62 (talk) 17:50, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cbl62. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "1941 Panzer football team".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission, and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions here. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 10:31, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cbl62. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:1961 San Francisco Dons football team, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 01:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop mass-reverting. There's an updated version of the Nevada media guide available. I will update accordingly. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• You need to be much more careful with these edits. You have mass-removed working citations to CFDW, leaving only a non-working citation to an old media guide. That is not making Wikipedia better. If there is an updated version of the media guide, it should be added BEFORE removing another working source! Cbl62 (talk) 22:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On 9 May 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Gannon Golden Knights football, 1949–1950, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Gannon University's original American football program lasted only two years due to fan "apathy", despite going undefeated and holding scoreless six of eight opponents in its first year? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gannon Golden Knights football, 1949–1950. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Gannon Golden Knights football, 1949–1950), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cielquiparle (talk) 00:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1939 Tulane Green Wave football team, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ralph Wenzel.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On 15 May 2025, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Chet Lemon, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 23:46, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats for getting the page up to snuff. Remembering that the 84 Tigers were touted as being strong up the middle, I assumed Lemon was a Gold Glover all this time. —Bagumba (talk) 08:05, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Lemon was an excellent center fielder to complement the Tigers' up-the-middle defense with Trammell, Whitaker, and Parrish, but Dwayne Murphy dominated the Gold Glove at center field, winning seven straight years from 1980 to 1986. Cbl62 (talk) 12:36, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For 250,000 edits. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 07:45, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You might not have seen this since the bot posted right after me, so pinging again just in case! Thanks, ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Cbl62 (talk) 18:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1958 Iowa Hawkeyes football team, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Springfield, NJ.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day! Hi Cbl62! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 04:27, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1960 Iowa Hawkeyes football team, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rose Bowl.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:58, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On 28 May 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hal Hanson (American football, born 1905), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that while picking his Minnesota "team of the century", Dick Cullum said that Hal Hanson (pictured) "made brave men wince"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hal Hanson (American football guard). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Hal Hanson (American football, born 1905)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cielquiparle (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Davenport Panthers football, 2016–present, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 22:44, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Charlie Gehringer you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ganesha811 -- Ganesha811 (talk) 15:41, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cbl62, please take a look at the review so far and respond to the issues raised. Thanks. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:53, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Charlie Gehringer you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article needs changes or clarifications to meet the good article criteria. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Charlie Gehringer and Talk:Charlie Gehringer/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ganesha811 -- Ganesha811 (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Turkey Stearnes (Detroit Stars).png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:47, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Turkey Stearnes you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 02:08, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, User:Wizardman. Cbl62 (talk) 16:52, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hey, just wanted to make sure you saw what I reviewed so far. I know you're working on Gehringer so not a big rush, just making sure it wasn't missed. Wizardman 22:27, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Charlie Gehringer, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 15:47, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Trevor Keegan (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:ONEOTHER since 2023

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ivey (talk - contribs) 13:48, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cfbrivalries appears to edit periodically where their only edits are to "official" rivalry pages. Embeddening them on certain CFB pages. [2]-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 00:55, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching my bizarre JWB error from 2023. I checked a few before and after that in my contribs and see that whatever I had going in that pattern made a few more errors, too. I'm presently not able to work on that, but hopefully soon. Dicklyon (talk) 04:07, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, User:Dicklyon. As I come across them on Ohio State pages, I'll try to fix as well. Cbl62 (talk) 12:13, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Cbl. Was there not a category for multi-year college football team season articles (such as Wayne State Warriors football, 2020–present)? I thought I recalled there being a catch-all category for these decade/late-19th century/multi-year articles. Was it deleted or was it a figment of my imagination? JTtheOG (talk) 23:34, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is but it's an administrative category the User:Jweiss11 created, so I am pinging him to provide you with details. Cbl62 (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's Category:College football multi-season team articles. It's a hidden category, so it doesn't appear on the constituent articles. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:41, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, much appreciated. JTtheOG (talk) 00:03, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we did "series" articles but no one at the AfD discussed that aspect much. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 07:10, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I am disappointed at the discussion, but I'm inclined to move on. Cbl62 (talk) 11:07, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]